The title of this book promises the exposure of occult currents within the founding fabric of the academic field of religious studies—a commitment that is kept overall. Within the volume’s introduction, Yves Mühlematter and Helmut Zander argue that esotericism is a “cross-cutting, interdisciplinary topic” (2) that may be investigated within numerous academic fields, rather than a separate field itself. Furthermore, the editors state that “global history, postcolonial studies, or translational studies in the field of esotericism will not bear fruit without interdisciplinary cooperation” (2). While noting a field of esotericism directly after asserting that esotericism is not a field may seem contradictory, the importance of the overarching point here overshadows the possible confusion. In other words, this book’s advocacy for and commitment to expansive and interdisciplinary scholarship is both clearly stated and is perhaps its greatest strength. In fact, this defense of interdisciplinarity is reminiscent of New Approaches to the Study of Esotericism (Brill 2020), an erudite and inclusive collection edited by Egil Asprem and Occult Roots contributor Julian Strube, who call for a global and intersectional approach to the study of esotericism.The first chapter provides an account of the discursive utilizations of the word esoteric, ultimately arguing against a singular, absolute definition. As its author Helmut Zander asserts, universalizing the esoteric can have (and has had) negative perennialist consequences. The solution he thus presents is an “open concept” approach to understanding esotericism, which would require scholars to clearly identify their working definition of esotericism at the “beginning of each essay and each monograph” (37). While I couldn’t agree more with Zander’s argument here, I found it curious that none of the other authors within this volume presented their own definition of esotericism.Nonetheless, in the second chapter, Marco Frenschkowski demonstrates the ways in which the foundation and emergence of a scientific study of religions interacted with scholarly interest in magic, taboo, and occultism. Frenschkowski also discusses the tensions between the Theosophical Society and the Society for Psychical Research, reflecting the following sentiment stated by the volume’s editors: “the field of occultism and esotericism was not an amorphous collection of ideas or individuals, but included a multitude of associations, societies, and movements” (5).The book then shifts the focus to specific scholars and their occult attitudes and connections. Daniel Cyranka uses Christian Gottfried Daniel Nees von Esenbeck, president of the Leopoldina Academy of Natural Sciences, as a case study for the early delineations and boundaries placed around the academic study of religions, what Cyranka describes as the transition from “science and religion to the science of religion” (84). Boaz Huss’ chapter highlights further tensions and boundaries by discussing scholar of Jewish mysticism Gershom Scholem’s disparaging of occult Kabbalah in tandem with his academic interest in the Christian Kabbalah of early modern (Western) esotericism. The foundation of Scholem’s critique was rooted primarily in a Jewish national perspective, in which the Kabbalah studied outside of a Jewish and/or academic framework was deemed as inauthentic.Julian Strube’s essay on John Woodroffe, the scholar generally credited with founding the academic study of Tantra, highlights the influence of Woodroffe’s works on both scholarly and occult groups. Strube illuminates the interactions between academic discourses and occult movements; he also examines several other fascinating yet lesser-known scholars, such as Baradā Kānta Majumdār. Aiming to “disabuse the minds of the Tantra-haters of their misconception about this very instructive and interesting branch of Hindu literature” (138), Majumdār forged connections between Tantra and Western esoteric currents by using Western esoteric discourse as a defense for Tantra—for instance, likening the “Tantriks” to Freemasons and the Rosicrucians.Jens Schlieter examines the influence of American Theosophist Walter Yeeling Evans-Wentz on the “science of religion.” Stating that “western occultism and esotericism were…one of the fertile grounds that nourished an academic interest in comparative religion” (162), Schlieter chose an apt case study in Evans-Wentz, who, like Woodruffe, looked beyond the West and engaged in collaboration with indigenous peoples and materials. From his initial work on fairies and Celtic studies, to his eventual interest in, and translation of, the Tibetan Book of the Dead (1927), this scholar–practitioner represents a wide scope of occult entanglements expressed within the comparative study of religions. Further examining the ways in which Eastern philosophies influenced occultists and academics of the West, Léo Bernard’s essay discusses French Indologist Paul Masson-Oursel’s dissatisfaction with the scope of Indology at the time, his interest in “indigenous perspectives,” and his desire to “gain a deeper understanding of Hindu traditions” (206).The volume’s final chapter—Sabine Böhme’s discussion of archaeologist Walter Andrae’s organization and structuring of Mesopotamian finds within the Museum of the Ancient Near East (now in the Pergamonmuseum, Berlin)—applies to the larger call of the volume to examine overlooked intersections and associations. While the chapter is interesting, it does not convince me that it necessarily fits with the overall theme of the esoteric roots of religious studies. Additionally, several chapters vaguely mention a conference at which this volume was inspired or discussed, yet no further identification of the conference is presented. An introductory note discussing the conference and its influence on the volume would have been a welcome inclusion.Overall, this volume’s focus on the interactions of specific scholarly individuals with occult currents does indeed showcase religious study’s occult roots. Furthermore, the editors make clear their stance on interdisciplinary collaboration from their introductory and first chapters. It is refreshing to witness the increased publication of works which advocate such expansion and intersectional research within religious studies.